<chapter id="h2-rules"><title>Regels voor interpretatie van de bijbel (Hermeneutiek)</title>
<para>We already learned about the "3 Cs": content, context, cross-reference.  We 
want to expand that now by delving briefly into biblical hermeneutics, whose 
goal is to discover the meaning intended by the original author (and 
Author!).  While many applications of a passage are valid, only one 
interpretation is valid. The scripture itself says this by saying that no 
scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Pe.1:20 KJV <quote>Knowing 
this first, that no prophesy of scripture is of any private 
interpretation.</quote>). Certain rules are helps toward discovering the 
correct meaning; by ignoring these rules people have brought much trouble on 
themselves and their followers.  2 Pe.3:16 <quote>...in which are some 
things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they 
do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.</quote></para>

<para>How do we go about discovering the intended meaning of a passage? Let's say 
your attention has been drawn to a particular verse whose meaning is not 
clear to you.  How do you study it out? Keep these rules in mind:</para>

<section id="h2-rules-exact"><title>Regel 1 - Interpreteer de tekst volgens de precieze betekenis van de 
woorden.</title>
<para>The more precise we can be with the exact, original meaning of the words the 
better our interpretation will be.  Try to find the exact meaning of the key 
words by following these steps:</para>

<orderedlist>
	<listitem>
		<formalpara><title>Definition</title>
		<para>Look up the definition in a Greek or Hebrew dictionary.  For verbs, the verb 
tense is also crucial.</para>
		</formalpara>
	</listitem>
	
	<listitem>
		<formalpara><title>Tekstverwijzingen</title>
		<para>Compare scripture with scripture.  Seeing how the same Greek or Hebrew word 
(not the English word) is used in scripture may clarify or throw new light 
on the definition.  How does the same author use this word elsewhere? Other 
authors? Your reference tools may give you uses of the word in non-biblical 
documents, as well.  Why do we have to go to the original languages; why 
isn't the English word good enough? <emphasis>Because more than one greek 
word may be translated into the same english word, and the greek words may 
have different shades of meaning.</emphasis></para>
		</formalpara>
	</listitem>
</orderedlist>

<section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1a"><title>Voorbeeld 1A</title>
<para>Jn.20:17 <emphasis>"Touch me not"</emphasis> (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't it? 
Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is risen, that He 
is too holy or something.  But that doesn't seem right, so let's look it up 
in Spiros Zodhiates' <emphasis>The Complete Word Study New 
Testament</emphasis> (AMG Publishers, 1991).</para>

<para>Definition: Turning to John 20:17, above the word "Touch" we see "pim680." 
The letters give us a code for the part of speech, and the number refers to 
Strong's dictionary reference.  Let's look up the definition (p. 879).  
"680.  Haptomai; from hapto (681), touch.  Refers to such handling of an 
object as to exert a modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from 
pselaphao (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of 
something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates come right 
after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for "present imperative 
active (80)".  On p.857, "Present Imperative.  In the active voice, it may 
indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous 
or repeated action or, when it is negated, a command to stop doing 
something. " This is a negative command, so it is to stop doing something 
that is already occuring.  So, what have we found?</para>
<para><emphasis>Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying to stop holding him!</emphasis></para>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1b"><title>Example 1B</title>
<para>In James 5:14, <emphasis>Elders are told to pray and anoint someone who is 
sick</emphasis>.  What is this anointing?</para>
<para>Definition of aleipho (218) - "to oil" (Strong's); but we also have another 
Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) - "to smear or rub with oil, 
i.e. to consecrate to an office or religious service" (Strong's).  Since 
it's a verb, consider the tense also, "apta" aorist participle active.  "The 
aorist participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous 
action...When its relaitonship to the main verb is temporal, it usually 
signifies action prior to that of the main verb." (Zodhiates p.851)</para>

<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>Cross-references for aleipho:
	<orderedlist>
		<listitem><para>Mt.6:17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Mk.16:1 [the women] brought spices that they might come and anoint Him.</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Mk.6:13 And they were...anointing with oil many sick people and healing 
them.</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Lk.7:38 [...] kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Jn.12:3 Mary [...] anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped them with her hair</para></listitem>
	</orderedlist></para>
</listitem>

<listitem><para>Cross-references of chrio:
	<orderedlist>
		<listitem><para>Lk.4:18 <quote>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me 
to preach [...]</quote></para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Acts 4:27 Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and power</para></listitem>
		<listitem><para>2 Cor.1:21 Now He who...anointed us is God</para></listitem>
	</orderedlist></para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>

<para>So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look back over the 
cross-references and the definitions, and sum up the difference: 
<emphasis>&quot;aleipho&quot; is a practical use of oil and 
&quot;chrio&quot; is a spiritual</emphasis></para>

<para>As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the practical use of 
oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared for the man beat up by 
robbers he poured oil and wine in the wound.  So oil had a medicinal use in 
Jesus' day.
</para>
<para>Laten we eens toepassen op wat we zojuist geleerd hebben door deze 
woordstudie n.a.v. Jakobus 5:14 <emphasis>"Is er iemand bij u ziek? Laat hij 
dan de oudsten der gemeente tot zich roepen, opdat zij over hem een gebed 
uitspreken en hem met olie zalven in de naam des Heren."</emphasis> Is dat 
zalven geestelijk of praktisch? Het is praktisch! </para>
<para>
And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be better translated 
"having anointed," so the order is the anointing first, then the prayer ("in 
the name of the Lord"refers to the prayer, not the anointing).  James 5 is 
saying that the elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him 
in the name of the Lord.  Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of 
practical and spiritual in our God!
</para>
</section>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-context">
<title>Regel 2 - Interpreteer binnen the bijbelse context</title>
<para>Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture.  What do the verses on 
each side say? What is the theme of the chapter? the book? Does your 
interpretation fit with these? If not, it is flawed.  Usually, the context 
supplies what we need to correctly interpret the passage.  Context is key.  
If confusion remains as to the meaning after we have interpreted the text 
within its context, we have to look further.</para>

<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2a"><title>Voorbeeld 2A </title>
<para>In een voorgaande les behandelden we Joh.3:5 <emphasis>"geboren ...uit water 
en geest."</emphasis> Wat is volgens de context het water waarover het hier 
gaat?</para>
<para>Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be a big switch from 
the subject being discussed by Jesus and Nicodemus.  Watch out for a sudden 
change of topic, it may be a clue that your interpretation has been 
derailed! The water is the amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.</para>
</section>
<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2b"><title>Voorbeeld 2B</title>
<para>1 Cor.14:34 <quote>Let the women keep silent in the churches</quote> has to 
be taken within the biblical context of 1 Cor.11:5 <quote>every woman [...] 
while praying or prophesying [...]</quote></para>
</section>
<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2c"><title>Voorbeeld 2C</title>
<para>Acts 2:38 <quote>And Peter said to them, &quot;Repent, and let each of you 
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins 
[...]&quot;</quote>.  Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If this was 
the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to conclude that.  But in 
the light of the clear teaching elsewhere that regeneration happens by faith 
in Christ, we have to interpret it otherwise.  Peter is urging baptism as a 
way for his hearers to respond to the gospel.  If baptism were the pathway 
to being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 <emphasis>"For Christ 
did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"</emphasis>?
</para>
</section>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-hcontest">
<title>Regel 3 - Interpreteer binnen de historische en culturele context</title>
<para>
At first we are not asking <quote>What does it mean to me?</quote> but 
<quote>What did it mean to the original readers?</quote>; later we can ask, 
<quote>What does it mean to me?</quote>.  We have to take into account the 
historical and cultural background of the author and the recipients.</para>

<section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3a"><title>Example 3A</title><para>  <quote>3 days &amp; 3 nights</quote> (Mt.12:40) have led some to come up 
with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of Armstrongism.  How 
could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise Sunday morning yet "be raised 
on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact meanings of "three" or "days" won't help 
explain the apparent contradiction.</para>
<para>We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a day as a full day, 
as we would count buckets of water (if there were six and one-half buckets 
of water, we would say there were 7 buckets of water even if one was only 
partly full).  So to the Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full 
day, and days started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m.  Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 
p.m. = day 1.  Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2.  Saturday 6 p.m. to 
Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3.  Interpreting within the cultural context keeps 
us out of trouble.</para>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3b"><title>Voorbeeld 3B</title><para>Gen.15:7-21.  The historical context is that cutting animals in two and then 
walking between the pieces was the normal way of entering a contract in 
Abraham's day.  Both parties walked between, taking the pledge that 
dismemberment would happen to them if they didn't live up to their part of 
the contract.  But in this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral 
covenant.</para>
</section>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-normal"><title>Regel 4 - Interpreteer volgens het normale gebruik van woorden in de taal</title>
<para>Let literal language be literal and figurative language be figurative.  And 
watch out for idioms, which have special meanings.</para>

<section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4a"><title>Voorbeeld 4A</title>
<para><quote>evil eye</quote> in Mt.6:23.</para>
<para>Rule 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here.  Rule 2, context: 
seems to confuse us even more.  It doesn't seem to fit with what goes before 
and after! This should tip us off that we aren't understanding it rightly!!</para>
<para>What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, <quote>evil eye</quote>.  Let's look up 
other uses of this idiom: Mt.20:15 "<emphasis>Is it not lawful for me to do 
what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because 
I am generous [lit. "good"]?</emphasis>" We find that having an "evil eye" 
is a Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious.  Now go back to Mt.6 and 
notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the context.</para>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4b"><title>Voorbeeld 4B</title>
<para>Is.59:1 <quote>The Lord's hand is not short;</quote></para>
<para>Deut.33:27 <quote>Underneath are the everlasting arms.</quote></para>
<para>
References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day Saints to prove that 
God was once a man just as we are.  Once they convince people of that, they 
go on to teach that we can become God just like He is! At a lecture he was 
giving, a group of Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of 
<emphasis>Kingdom of the Cults</emphasis>)  with an enumeration of verses 
like these.  Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one more scripture: 
Ps.91:4 <quote>He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings 
shalt thou trust</quote>.  W.M. said, <quote>By the same rules of 
interpretation that you just proved God to be a man, you just proved that He 
is a bird</quote>.  The Mormons had to laugh as they realised the 
ridiculousness of their position.
</para>
</section>
</section>

<section id="h2-rules-parables"><title>Regel 5 - Begrijp de zin van gelijkenissen, en het verschil tussen een 
gelijkenis en een allegorie</title>
<para>An allegory is: <emphasis>A story where each element has a 
meaning.</emphasis></para>
<para>Elke gelijkenis is een allegorie. Is dat juist of onjuist?</para>

<para>Some parables are allegories, for instance, the parable of the sower is an 
allegory: the seed is the word of God, the thorns are worries and greed, 
etc.  But most parables are not allegories but simply stories to illustrate 
one point.  It's dangerous to get our doctrine from parables; they can be 
twisted to say all sorts of things.  We need to get our doctrine from clear 
scriptures that lay it out; then if a parable illustrates that, fine.</para>

<section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5a"><title>Voorbeeld 5A</title>
<para>The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in Lk.18:1-8. This story 
illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer.  If we draw it into an allegory, 
what do we have?</para>
<para>De betekenis wordt op allerlei manieren geweld aangedaan: God is onwillig om 
de rechten van weduwen te beschermen, gebed "kwelt" Hem, enz.</para></section>

<section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5b"><title>Voorbeeld 5B</title>
<para>The parable of the unrighteous steward in Lk.16:1-9.  What is the point of 
the parable? Is it an allegory? </para>
<para>The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness in using what he 
had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have it.  But he is not commended 
for his unethical behavior in cheating his master. </para>
</section>

</section>
</chapter>
